Democrats' big presidential primary changes are still stuck in limbo

Declaring a state eligible for an early primary slot and making it so are two different things, however. Complying with the new calendar is an easy hurdle for South Carolina and Nevada, as state party leadership sets the primary date in South Carolina and Nevada’s primary date complies with current state law. Michigan, too, must change its date, but Democrats are expected to move forward easily with a bill given that they now control the state legislature. All three states submitted letters to that effect to the DNC in recent days.

But it’s more complicated for New Hampshire and Georgia, where there are Republican-controlled state legislatures.

In a letter submitted Thursday morning, New Hampshire Democrats asked the DNC to “reconsider the requirements,” which they argue should reflect the reality of their situation: A state law requires them to hold their primary a week before any other state in the nation, and the Republican-controlled legislature and governor’s mansion will not budge on changing their date or their current voter access laws.

Right now, the DNC wants New Hampshire to hold its primary on the same day as Nevada, four days after the South Carolina primary. That would “run up against New Hampshire law,” state Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said in an interview with POLITICO.

“To punish us for something we have nothing that we can do about only hurts ourselves.” Buckley said. “It’s my hope that after further consideration and discussion that they would look at creating a plan that not only lifts up Black voices … but also recognize New Hampshire’s state law.”

Meanwhile, New Hampshire Republicans rolled out new legislation Wednesday to fortify the state’s first-in-the-nation status, including a state constitutional amendment, because “our historic tradition has been under attack by those looking to maybe repurpose it for their own political gain,” said state Sen. Regina Birdsell, a New Hampshire Republican.

“We will respond aggressively to anyone that attempts, like the DNC, or anyone, who attempts to take that away from us,” Birdsell said.

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican, echoed that commitment, calling any effort to change it “dead on arrival.”

Should New Hampshire Democrats ultimately hold their primary on a date that’s not backed by the DNC, they could face an array of potential sanctions, including automatically losing half their delegates. Candidates who campaign in a state going outside the prescribed order could also face punishment. The DNC broadly empowered the national party chair last year to take any other “appropriate steps” to enforce the new early window.

“If they choose to create any level of sanctions, obviously, we will deal with any that relate to us specifically,” Buckley said.

Democrats face serious hurdles changing the primary date in Georgia, too. The Georgia Secretary of State’s office already ruled out the possibility of splitting the Democratic and Republican primaries into two dates, said Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs, citing the cost to taxpayers.

Any changes would also need “to be equitable to both political parties,” Fuchs added.

The Republican National Committee, for its part, voted to retain its current early-state lineup: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and then Nevada. Any state going outside of that order, according to the RNC’s rules, would also face sanctions.

“You have to talk to Republicans if you want to make this work,” said one Georgia operative involved in the calendar process. “Not a single Republican is saying, ‘I want to pick up this gauntlet.’”

Of the move to add Georgia, the operative noted, Democrats “laid no groundwork, no bipartisanship buy-in on it.” Instead, “they surprised everyone.”

The calendar approved in February may not necessarily hold beyond 2024. A number of DNC members privately noted that the review process is already in place to reconsider the 2028 lineup by 2026, meaning that “this is a calendar for 2024, but not necessarily for 2028,” said one Rules and Bylaws committee member.

“There will be a new RBC committee, new DNC leadership, and we hope that we can appeal to them,” Buckley said, when asked about 2024 setting a precedent for future cycles. “I certainly think that the multiple candidates that would be running, or consider running, in 2028 would make their voices clear, too.”


source

Biden will send Bradley Fighting Vehicles to Ukraine. And tanks could be next.

The move to send modern infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine could pave the way to supplying the more powerful Western tanks, something U.S. and European allies have so far been reluctant to do, say experts and two U.S. officials.

Those could include Germany’s Leopard tanks or even the U.S. Army’s M1 Abrams, said experts and the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to talk about ongoing discussions.

Western tanks — as opposed to less powerful wheeled vehicles with smaller main guns — would be a game-changer for Kyiv, which already operates Soviet-era tanks from its own inventories and others provided after the invasion by European nations. A Leopard or Abrams is more mobile, accurate and has longer range compared with the old Soviet tanks. They are also more effective at protecting troops than the older tanks or even the Western infantry fighting vehicles as Ukraine continues to suffer large losses on the battlefield.

Indeed, while President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday thanked France for the AMX-10, he urged other allies to provide tanks and other heavy weapons.

“There is no rational reason why Ukraine has not yet been supplied with Western tanks,” he said.

The 50 Bradleys are part of an overall aid package to be announced Friday worth $3.8 billion, according to a person familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to speak ahead of an announcement. The package sets aside $2.25 billion for Ukraine, which will also include 155mm artillery shells. Another $682 million in military financing will go to Eastern European countries to allow them to buy American weaponry and military equipment. Ukraine will also receive $225 million in military financing.

The package will for the first time include radar-guided Sea Sparrow anti-air missiles, which can be launched from the sea or on land to intercept aircraft or cruise missiles. In a bit of battlefield innovation, the Ukrainian military has managed to tweak its existing Soviet-era BUK launchers to fire the Sea Sparrow, two people familiar with the matter said. Up to this point, Taiwan has been the only country to operate the ground-launched version of the missiles, while the U.S. and multiple allied navies use the ship-mounted version.

Bloomberg first reported that the administration was considering sending Bradleys. The vehicles are designed to work in tandem with the Abrams, providing a “complementary” capability, said retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. Army Europe.

“This is the next step by the administration to provide something that they have been reluctant to do in the past, so this hopefully signals recognition by the administration that the Russians really cannot escalate each time we provide a new capability,” Hodges said.

A Defense Department spokesperson declined to comment on the tank issue.

The Bradley alone would be a significant capability boost for Ukraine. The U.S. has already sent more than 2,000 combat vehicles, including hundreds of mine-resistant vehicles and Humvees that Kyiv has used to push through Russia’s defenses. But the U.S. Army’s gold standard infantry fighting vehicle, the Bradley, is a faster, better-protected update to the M113 armored personnel carrier.

In addition to the 25mm Bushmaster chain gun, it is also armed with two TOW antitank missiles and a 7.62 coaxial machine gun.

“The Brad (or [Infantry Fighting Vehicle]/[Cavalry Fighting Vehicle]) is NOT a tank, but it can be a tank killer,” tweeted retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, also a former commanding general of U.S. Army Europe.

The Bradley is also considered to be a less escalatory choice than the Abrams for an administration still concerned about provoking Moscow. But it will be lethal on the battlefield, particularly when paired with Kyiv’s Soviet-era tanks, Hodges said.

“A big part of combined arms warfare is that you have protected infantry that can move alongside tanks, keep up with them, and that’s part of what combined arms is all about: infantry armor artillery,” Hodges said. “By having your infantry moving along with them, that makes it that much more lethal.”

The U.S. Bradley and the French AMX-10, if deployed by the spring in time for renewed Ukrainian offensives in the east, will provide a potent new capability for Ukrainian forces. The AMX-10 has been used as a reconnaissance vehicle and tank killer by French forces in the past, and its high maneuverability and speed would allow Ukraine to hit hard and fast in small engagements. Its relatively light armor is a drawback against heavy Russian guns, however, making speed the key.

“The French vehicle has a lot of firepower, it just doesn’t have a lot of protection,” said Nick Reynolds, a research analyst at the U.K.-based Royal United Services Institute think tank. “It is ultimately a wheeled vehicle which makes it vulnerable, even if it does have fairly good off-road mobility.” The vehicle’s gun can likely take out Russian T-72 tanks and armored infantry carriers, however.

One adviser to the Ukraine government told POLITICO that Washington and Kyiv have been talking for months about sending heavier armor. One of the main sticking points has been identifying which units or storage facilities have the right vehicles available for export, along with some concerns over advanced optical and communications equipment included in newer models.

The Pentagon last month announced an expansion of its training program for Ukrainian forces at a U.S. base in Germany, both in size and scope. The new program will expand training to a battalion’s worth of roughly 500 soldiers a month, and will also include instruction on how to coordinate infantry maneuvering with artillery support, called “combined arms operations.”

Now that the administration has approved sending the Bradleys, the trainees will likely be instructed on how to more effectively maneuver the vehicles alongside existing tanks and infantry. Lighter and more agile than a tank, the Bradley can hold up to 10 soldiers, who will be able to come off the back carrying Javelin antitank missiles, Hodges noted.

For Ukraine, Bradleys and Western tanks can’t come soon enough. Zelenskyy said Tuesday that Russia is planning a second mobilization for a major new offensive early this year. And last month, Gen. Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s top military leader, told The Economist that he believes Russia could make a push to take Kyiv as soon as January.

Ukrainian officials have been begging for hundreds more tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and howitzers to help repel Russian attacks, particularly strikes on cities and civilian infrastructure.

“We are balancing on a fine line. And if [the power grid] is destroyed … that is when soldiers’ wives and children start freezing,” Zaluzhnyi told The Economist. “What kind of mood the fighters will be in, can you imagine? Without water, light and heat, can we talk about preparing reserves to keep fighting?”

The administration may still be reluctant to send Abrams tanks, however, due to the significant training and logistics involved. Maintenance in the field will be a challenge, especially without a supply of parts. A tank division can also guzzle up to 600,000 gallons of fuel a day, potentially slowing Ukraine’s movement.

The Bradley’s logistical requirements are “terrifically less burdensome than, say, those associated with an M1,” one of the U.S. officials said. “Our M1s would be a logistics burden that we would not want to put on [Ukraine] until they and we were confident they were ready.”

However, Hodges said the training and logistics challenge is “a solvable problem” if the U.S. begins instructing Ukrainian forces on the systems now.

“Let Ukraine pick 100 tankers that are experienced tank mechanics and send them to wherever the U.S. has Abrams tanks in Poland or send them back to Fort Benning, Ga., where the armor school is, and let them start learning now,” he said.


source

Biden: GOP speaker drama 'embarrassing' and 'not my problem'

When asked Tuesday about the Biden’s thoughts on the speakership race, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters President Biden “certainly will not insert himself in that process,” saying the administration was “looking forward to working with congressional colleagues including Democrats, Republicans and Independents this year.”

On Tuesday, a handful of Republicans blocked Kevin McCarthy’s bid for speaker during three straight votes for the gavel, with McCarthy only losing support as the day wore on.

As the House GOP prepares to enter the second day of deliberation, it’s unclear whether McCarthy’s whip count has improved or how Republicans will proceed in their public infighting over the speaker’s gavel.

source

Elon Musk is ‘a perfect recruitment tool’ for organized labor, says British union boss

Press play to listen to this article

Voiced by artificial intelligence.

LONDON — Elon Musk’s controversial Twitter firing spree is sending workers into the arms of organized labor, according to the new head of Britain’s Trades Union Congress.

“Elon Musk is a perfect recruitment tool for the trade union movement,” Paul Nowak told POLITICO. Since the Tesla billionaire took over the social media platform in October, Prospect, one of the trade union federation’s 48 affiliates, “has seen its membership in Twitter go up tenfold,” he said.

The influx is “precisely in response” to Musk, argued Nowak, who “thinks he can issue a directive from San Francisco that somehow just happens all around the world with no regard to employment law.”

Musk has fired roughly 3,700 employees — nearly half of Twitter’s workforce — in a round of mass layoffs since buying the company.

U.K. Twitter employees earmarked for an exit received an email saying their job would be “potentially” impacted or “at risk,” because, under British law, firms are required to consult with staff over mass redundancies.

In November, Musk meanwhile gave staff an email ultimatum to either go “extremely hardcore” by “working long hours at high intensity” or quit the company.

Musk’s behavior is, Nowak said, “a great recruiting tool for us.”

“If I was a young worker in tech, I’d be thinking that being a union member might be a good investment at the moment,” he said. “If it can happen at Twitter, it can happen anywhere.”

Unions have in recent years ramped up their activity in another part of the tech world: the gig economy. Uber and food delivery service Deliveroo recently signed agreements with unions, while some Apple stores have voted for union recognition. Last year also saw the first-ever industrial action ballots at a U.K. Amazon warehouse.

Organized labor is “beginning to make inroads” in tech, Nowak said — but it still needs “to step up that work.” Twitter had not responded to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Strikes

Nowak takes the helm at the TUC at a time of major industrial unrest in the U.K, as employees in a host of sectors rail against stagnant wages amid soaring inflation.

U.K. Twitter employees earmarked for an exit received an email saying their job would be “potentially” impacted or “at risk” | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

“It doesn’t matter whether it’s railway workers, postal workers, nurses, paramedics, our members aren’t on strike for the sake of it,” he said.

Since the financial crisis in 2008, the median income in Britain has fallen behind neighboring countries in Europe. An analysis by the TUC shows workers are £20,000 poorer, on average, since 2008 because pay has failed to keep up with inflation. By 2025 the union group expects that gap to increase to £24,000, with even larger gulfs for frontline healthcare staff who are striking.

Britain’s Retail Price Index measure inflation reached 14 percent last year, and economists forecast inflation — in part spurred by the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — will persist longer in the U.K. than among its G7 partners.  

“Households can’t afford as much as they have been able to in the past,” said Josie Dent, managing economist at the Centre for Economics and Business Research. “Naturally that creates weaker demand.”

Against that backdrop, Novak said he wants the British government to stimulate domestic demand by putting more pay in workers’ pockets. The government argues boosting public sector pay will further fuel inflation and push its already shaky public finances further into the red.

“What do our members do when our members get paid and get decent pay rises? They go and spend that money in local shops, hotels, restaurants,” said Nowak, and “they don’t squirrel it away in offshore bank accounts, or save it away for a rainy day.”

“You have to create demand internally in the economy as well,” he added. “We’ve had the government sort of turn that common sense on its head.”


source

Increasingly desperate GOP calls it a night without picking a speaker

“I’ll be optimistic when I see white smoke coming out of the chimney,” said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), a McCarthy ally. While he said progress could “hopefully” be made overnight, he added, “Hope is never a method.”

Still, after temperatures spiked during multiple closed-door GOP meetings this week — and six rounds of failed ballots drew comparisons to “Groundhog Day” — multiple Republicans insisted they were feeling more optimistic as they left the Capitol on Wednesday night. But many members cautioned that it was impossible to know whether there were any compromises that would prompt McCarthy’s most intractable opposition to change position.

They may soon find out. McCarthy’s team on Wednesday night laid out an offer that would give in to nearly every demand expressed by his defectors. But it was still unclear if it would be enough to win enough of those lawmakers over to his side.

True to form, one of McCarthy’s chief antagonists, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), said he was still digesting his most recent conversations with leadership and withheld from any new commitments: “There’s a lot of details here that matter … I gotta see what we’re even talking about.”

The House’s vote to adjourn on Wednesday night — the GOP’s first successful vote of their majority — was, to some, a sign that some members were willing to budge. One senior Republican, Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), offered this assessment: “Hard to say but that’s probably good news.”

That dose of optimism comes at a crucial time for Republicans, as signs of desperation grew throughout the day Wednesday among a paralyzed — and increasingly furious — GOP conference.

One of them, Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), compared the process to Dante’s nine circles of hell: “I’m in at least one of them right now.”

Without any movement, the New Jersey Republican suggested party leaders should “get everybody back in the caucus room and start beating the daylights out of each other until we get somewhere.”

There’s no end in sight to the GOP stalemate, and lawmakers’ determination to resolve the humiliating standoff is growing increasingly frantic. They’ve started floating a range of longshot ideas to their colleagues, and even to Democrats.

Another tactic under consideration is arguably more risky for Republicans: Some McCarthy allies have privately proposed electing a House leader through a plurality of votes instead of a majority. That path, which one Republican described as the “nuclear option,” is intended to force conservatives to back the GOP leader or risk handing the gavel to incoming Democratic leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).

Few lawmakers on either side of the aisle believe those strategies are seriously on the table. Still, it’s a sign of Republicans’ increasing fatigue and frustration as they see no clear path to electing a speaker after two straight days of votes and months of bargaining.

“This is like O.J. and the white Bronco. Everybody’s watching … waiting for something to happen at 40 miles per hour,” Womack said, referring to the O.J. Simpson murder case.

One GOP aide mused: “Is this a less bloody version of World War I at this point?”

Even some Democrats are so alarmed about the situation that they’ve contacted Republicans — through floor conversations, phone calls and even private meetings — to discuss potential ways out of the predicament. But many Democrats caution that these talks, about power-sharing or coming to some other cooperative agreement, are not serious discussions about helping the GOP out of their own mess.

While that could still happen, they insist there’s no widespread appetite to alleviate the GOP’s suffering, at least not yet.

“We were talking about ideas,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who, along with Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.), crossed to the Republican side of the floor Wednesday to speak with Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) as Democrats wondered how this all might end.

As the votes ticked up on Wednesday, House Republicans remained almost entirely immobile on the second day of a public reckoning over the future of their conference. McCarthy’s gang of dissenters — labeled the “Taliban 19″ by some of their own colleagues — are now rolling tape on an uglier and more drawn-out sequel to McCarthy’s failed 2015 bid for the top gavel. And this time, he likely won’t have another chance for redemption.

On each vote, the California Republican repeatedly failed to win over the 20 conservatives who voted against him on the floor Tuesday. Some Republicans predicted his number of defectors would grow but, in fact, the number of anti-McCarthy votes remained mostly constant. One member, Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.), who is weighing a Senate bid, voted present in every ballot Wednesday after previously backing McCarthy.

Behind the scenes, several key McCarthy allies have attempted to back-channel with his defectors. One GOP lawmaker who attended those meetings said Wednesday night’s talks were the first time that members gathered in a room did not actually raise their voices at each other — though they acknowledged things still got heated.

GOP lawmakers across the party agree it’s entirely unknown what happens next. The extra time, however, also created the opportunity for members to cluster and chat about who could possibly take McCarthy’s place. Some say they can’t fully explore that question while McCarthy is still in the race, as his allies stress that dozens, perhaps as many as 80, “Only Kevin” members are refusing to hear other possibilities.

For now, GOP leaders aren’t allowing any daylight in their top ranks.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the No. 2 House Republican who’s been floated as a potential plan B candidate, agreed there had been some progress but declined to specify what was being discussed.

“There’s just been a lot of conversations about the issues that the been at the heart of this from the beginning, and that’s how we can make Congress work better to address the needs of families who are struggling.”

And there’s another factor at play outside the Capitol halls: Whether Trump uses his power — which is not as strong as it once was — to pressure some of the “no” votes to flip. On his social media platform Wednesday morning, Trump reiterated his support, despite growing rumblings that he was bowing away from his endorsement of the GOP leader.

“Some really good conversations took place last night, and it’s now time for all of our GREAT Republican House Members to VOTE FOR KEVIN, CLOSE THE DEAL, TAKE THE VICTORY,” he wrote.

Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

source

McCarthy bid sees glimmer of hope after late-night concessions

And even that olive branch to conservatives may not be enough to land McCarthy the speakership. McCarthy said Thursday he is expecting a similar vote tally, adding he “wouldn’t read into anything” as negotiations continue and remain unfinalized.

“I think what you’ll see today is the same until we finish everything,” he said.

Allies of the GOP leader continued to meet with holdouts on Thursday morning.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a McCarthy ally, said as he exited those meetings that the offer contained “clarifications” rather than “concessions” — and acknowledged that none of the dissenters have yet explicitly committed to vote for the Californian as a result of them.

The late-night negotiations with McCarthy critics followed another breakthrough for the GOP leader: The McCarthy-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund reached a deal with the conservative Club for Growth, which had initially signaled opposition to a Speaker McCarthy, to stay out of open House primaries for safe Republican seats. In exchange, the Club for Growth agreed to back McCarthy’s speaker bid, presuming Republicans reach a rules deal that aligns with the group’s wish list.

At least one McCarthy ally downplayed the significance of allowing a single member to force a vote on a so-called “motion to vacate the chair,” which would dislodge the speaker — despite his allies previously describing that concession as a red line.

“The difference between five and one? Yeah, fine,” said Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), a Freedom Caucus member who nominated McCarthy on the floor Wednesday.

But other senior Republicans and moderates, already feeling heartburn about the extent of McCarthy’s compromise offers, are anxiously awaiting details about the extent of the changes being agreed to. Those who have long detested the antics of the conservative Freedom Caucus, were starting to wonder if their leader might be getting picked clean of any authority as multiple votes chipped away at his standing.

It was a sharp turnabout from Tuesday morning, when one Republican recalled McCarthy beating his chest in conservatives’ direction during a tense closed-door conference meeting, saying: “You vote against me? You get less. I take things away.”

“At some point, you have to push back and say enough is enough,” one frustrated House Republican said on condition of anonymity late Wednesday night, shortly before the latest concession offer emerged. “But especially when you have members [in opposition] that had [McCarthy] hosting fundraisers and taking photos with them out in their districts.”

This Republican declined to commit one way or another on voting for a slimmed-down motion to vacate if McCarthy lobbied for one, and described conservatives’ push for “guaranteed chairmanships and stacking the Rules Committee” as a bridge too far.

Rules Committee seats would help McCarthy skeptics place their imprint on bills before they come to the floor. Conservatives are also seeking the GOP leader’s commitments for votes on specific pieces of legislation, including standalone consideration of each of the 12 yearly appropriations bills.

On top of that, McCarthy’s dissenters on the right also won a concession to carve out any earmarks included in those packages for separate votes, though it’s unclear whether they’d be voted on as one package or separately.

As the horse trading continued, it remains unclear how many more speaker ballots might be cast on Thursday. Some members have floated postponing votes until next week — though others in the party have pushed back on that idea.

One McCarthy ally, speaking on condition of anonymity, cautioned that the situation could “get worse before it gets better.” There’s an expectation that McCarthy could lose a handful of votes from exasperated members if balloting continues on Thursday.

And another GOP leadership aide said there are likely still five “hard nos” against McCarthy: Reps. Matt Gaetz, (Fla.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Bob Good (Va.) and Matt Rosendale (Mont.). McCarthy can only lose four GOP votes and still win the speakership, assuming full attendance.

As he left the Capitol Wednesday night, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) told reporters he hadn’t changed his position on opposing McCarthy. Norman is a major backer of the term-limits proposal included in the concession offer floated later that night.

McCarthy allies are also worried about freshman Rep. Eli Crane (Ariz.), who has been a hard “no.”

As Thursday dawned, the thinking in McCarthy’s camp was that if they can winnow down his opposition from 20 to a half-dozen or so, the pressure on the remaining holdouts will be so great that enough would cave.

Yet time is running out as some McCarthy backers exasperated by the stalemate eye an exit strategy. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), a former Rules Committee chair long considered an ally of GOP leadership, insisted on CNN last night that members should start discussing other potential speaker candidates, such as Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the expected incoming majority leader.

“I want to see what those concessions are, line by line. And maybe name by name,” said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.)

“Frustrated? That’s mild,” he added.

McCarthy’s camp also expects that he may eventually have to endorse conservatives for committee gavels, such as Rep. Andy Harris (Md.), who’s pushing to lead the Health and Human Services subcommittee on Appropriations, or Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), who’s gunning to lead the Committee on Homeland Security. (Those decisions are subject to the approval of the GOP steering committee, though McCarthy’s influence is significant.)

If the negotiating gets that far, it’s bound to upset many House Republicans who have supported McCarthy all along. Centrists or even mainstream conservatives are likely to argue that McCarthy is rewarding bad behavior.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), for example, also wants the Homeland Security gavel.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), for one, called dropping the motion to vacate down to one member a “terrible decision,” but left the door open if it got McCarthy the speaker’s gavel.

“I don’t like it. I don’t want to vote for it. But I’m willing to discuss it,” said Bacon, while warning that setting it at one member could result in the step being taken “every week.”

The chaos behind the scenes underscored the absurdity in which the House finds itself for a third straight day. Republicans cheered when they got the votes to adjourn for the night after a prolonged scuffle, celebrating as if they’d just passed a massive tax cut deal when they were simply leaving once again without a speaker.

Buck, at one point, floated — quite seriously — that members host a meeting with booze, suggesting it might help move talks along. Upon entering a meeting, incoming NRCC Chair Richard Hudson (N.C.) joked that his water bottle was actually full of vodka.

Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.


source

House's speaker drama shrinks congressional agenda

And that’s a harsh reality for the upper chamber’s Democrats. They can unilaterally approve President Joe Biden’s lifetime judicial nominees — confirming them even more quickly than last term, thanks to a clear 51-seat majority.

But they won’t be satisfied with simply turning the Senate floor into a nomination factory after Biden’s unexpectedly productive first two years in office. It’s just not in their DNA.

“I want to see some action,” said Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a member of Democratic leadership who chairs the Senate Rules Committee.

Holding only 50 Senate seats and a narrow House majority over Biden’s first two years in office, Democrats pushed through two sweeping party-line laws on Covid aid as well as taxes, health care and energy. That’s on top of bipartisan law spending billions on infrastructure, safeguarding same-sex marriage, tightening gun safety standards and boosting microchip manufacturing.

An agenda even approaching that size seems unattainable in the coming months as House Republicans flail their way through a stalemated speaker battle. Yet Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is still hopeful, regardless of who ends up leading the House, that lawmakers can “keep the streak going moving forward.”

Rather than sweeping changes to election law, D.C. statehood or the gargantuan plan known as “Build Back Better,” Democrats are discussing modest but still challenging issues to tackle this Congress. Klobuchar mentioned childcare, housing, Big Tech and antitrust as possibilities as well as “some type of immigration” bill.

“I know it seems impossible in the House, but it’s really necessary,” she said.

Schumer is still keen on marijuana banking legislation, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is eager to bring down drug prices and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) believes there’s room for bipartisan agreement on housing and crypto regulation.

All of those would have to clear the 60-vote hurdle of the Senate’s legislative filibuster before House Republicans would even think of considering them. And some Democrats argue that the only way to motivate the House to think in a more bipartisan fashion is to lead the way.

“It’s going to take a different strategy. We’ll work together here, and set an example,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).

The last time Democrats found themselves in the situation they’re confronting now — holding the presidency and Senate majority with a GOP House — was in 2012 after President Barack Obama’s reelection. That Senate took significant and risky steps toward bipartisanship, not all of them successful: An attempt at new gun background checks fell short, while a bipartisan Gang of Eight senators, including Schumer, helped pass a sweeping immigration reform bill.

But the House refused to touch immigration. Eventually, the government shut down as House Republicans and Senate conservatives tried to defund Obamacare. Then, Democrats lost the Senate in the brutal 2014 election.

With that lesson learned, Democrats are not aiming as high this time around. And even if Kevin McCarthy eventually manages to seize the speakership in the coming days, it’s hard to imagine a rush of bipartisanship in the first half of this year.

Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said things will look more sunny “if Kevin holds his ground and … tries to work with some of the people who are more moderate. And don’t cater to people that hold you hostage. In America we always say we don’t pay for hostages.”

“I’ve talked to Kevin before — I’d like to think that” he’ll work with us, Manchin said. “We’ll just see how he comes out of this.”

There’s also the question of whether Senate Republicans will even allow things to get that far. With just 51 seats, Democrats will need at least nine GOP votes in the Senate to pass anything. That means Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) who collaborated with Democrats to a surprising degree that past two years, maintains effective veto power over any legislation moving through the chamber.

Democratic leaders will have to calibrate their ambitions to what is doable, and possibly once again allow bipartisan gangs to cut deals. Different factions of Republicans have shown interest in taking on Big Tech, marijuana banking and lowering drug prices, particularly insulin.

And GOP leaders said Biden may have to get involved.

“I don’t think anybody for two years will want to just do judges. I think you want to see if there are some legislative accomplishments we can put up,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). “But clearly you’re going to have strong differences of opinion in divided government. So that’s going to require some presidential leadership.”

Then there are the must-pass spending bills, the debt ceiling and an expiring farm bill to confront. In particular, Republicans want to avoid another big end-of-year government funding deal crafted behind closed doors, after December’s $1.7 trillion bipartisan bill.

That will require both House Republicans and Senate Democrats to actually prioritize putting appropriations bills on the floor.

“That’s where Republicans in the House will make a difference once they get leadership established,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).

Of course, that assumes the fractious House can cobble together 218 votes even for spending bills after this week’s ugly speaker clashes. But a handful of optimistic Democratic senators see the House’s current struggle as a potentially cathartic one.

Brown said he hoped this week’s disarray “will free up enough Republicans to realize that if they want to get anything done, they have to work across party lines with us.”

“I don’t know that House Republicans want to go back and say: ‘Oh yeah, we did a lot of investigations,’” he added.

source

France to deliver 'light tanks' to Ukraine

PARIS — France will deliver “light” battle tanks to Ukraine, President Emmanuel Macron’s office announced Wednesday, which would make it the first country to send such Western-designed armored fighting vehicles to the wartorn country.

The Elysée said after a phone call between Macron and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy that France will send AMX-10 RC armored fighting vehicles, which Paris has been gradually replacing with new Jaguar battle tanks.

Several countries have already sent Soviet-era tanks to Ukraine. Both France and Germany have been under pressure to send tanks to Ukraine, but had refused to give in to Kyiv’s requests.

An adviser to France’s Minister of the Armed Forces Sébastien Lecornu said Wednesday’s decision was made to help Ukraine prepare for “a possible Russian offensive” in the spring.

“Ukraine is at a tipping point now at the frontline … Russia is trying to terrorize the population with its drone attacks that sometimes reach as far as Kyiv, but Ukraine could also start a counter-offensive,” he said.

Zelenskyy thanked Macron on Twitter, saying the two leaders had “a long and detailed conversation” and that the French president’s “leadership brings our victory closer.”

However, Ukraine’s requests for more arms from allies have still not been fully satisfied: In December, Kyiv formally asked for another model of tank, the Leclerc — France’s main battle tank — rather than AMX-10 light tanks, which are being phased out.

According to the French Armed Forces ministry adviser, the upkeep of France’s defense capacities has remained “a red line” for Macron.

France also did not specify how many vehicles it will send. The French and Ukrainian defense ministries are expected to further discuss the equipment delivery soon.


source

Biden and McConnell’s visit to Kentucky signals White House roadmap for next 2 years under split Congress

The rare joint appearance in Covington, Ky., represented an early effort to signal the White House’s eagerness for cooperation ahead of a politically combative next two years.

It was also an attempt at political inoculation. The White House specifically invited McConnell along with other senators and governors from Kentucky and Ohio, and used the event as a chance for Biden to highlight the $1.6 billion slated to rebuild a bridge between the two states as a bipartisan success story.

Biden aides and allies say they’re counting on the minority leader to remain something of a bulwark against the GOP’s riskier impulses — hammered home this week by chaos on the House floor over the election of a new speaker. The White House recognizes the need to avoid a government shutdown, keep aid to Ukraine flowing and stave off a catastrophic breach of the debt ceiling. They see McConnell as key to all those items.

“There’s still going to be strong partisan differences on a large majority of issues,” said an adviser to the White House. “But they both understand that when you can agree, you should if it’s in the best interest of the country and it serves your political purpose.”

Speaking to a crowd along the Ohio River, McConnell called the infrastructure law a “legislative miracle.” And though he declined to address Biden by name, the Republican praised the effort to find common ground “no matter who gets elected.”

“The country needs to see examples like this of coming together and getting an outcome,” he said.

Biden was far more direct.

“Mitch, it’s great to be with you,” he said, joking that he’d “asked permission” to compliment McConnell. “I said I’d campaign for him or against them — whichever would help him the most.” But the president quickly noted: “When he gives you his word you can take it to the bank, you can count on it.”

The Biden-McConnell relationship is, to a degree, an anachronism. The two men served for decades together in the Senate. And they have a history of cutting deals dating back to the Obama era, when they reached agreements on extending the Bush tax cuts, lifting the debt ceiling and the so-called fiscal cliff, which averted an economic meltdown. Biden, as vice president, appeared at the McConnell Center in Louisville in 2011, where he lavished praise on the senator at a time when the Kentucky Republican was openly trying to dislodge his boss from power. Four years later, McConnell was the lone Republican to attend the funeral for Biden’s son, Beau.

“They’ve known each other for decades,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a close McConnell ally. “And Joe Biden is a hard guy not to like, even though you may disagree with him on policy.”

Since Biden was elected, aides to both men said, the two have maintained a working relationship as well as a shared belief that the Senate can still get things done. McConnell helped pass last Congress’ bipartisan infrastructure law and backed bills to boost semiconductor manufacturing and improve gun safety.

“His support, in my view, of the infrastructure bill itself was critically important to our being here today,” former GOP Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who led the legislation, said of McConnell, adding that the Republican leader had “showed political courage.”

Biden on occasion has gone so far as to refer to McConnell as a “friend,” and sought his advice in crafting U.S. policy toward Myanmar, an area in which the Republican leader maintains a deep interest. At one point last year, the White House planned to nominate an anti-abortion judge favored by McConnell to Kentucky’s district court — a scheme halted only after fellow Republican Sen. Rand Paul refused to sign off on what he called the “secret deal.”

The event was part of a broader administration blitz to promote Biden’s legislative accomplishments across the country and portray him as an enthusiastic cross-aisle collaborator. McConnell greeted Biden on his arrival in Kentucky and rode with him in the motorcade.

Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine and Democrats Sen. Sherrod Brown and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear were also among those in attendance.

Paul and newly sworn-in GOP Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio were also invited to appear with Biden on Wednesday, a White House official said, but opted against it.

For Biden and McConnell, the event came at a political crossroads for both men, with Biden having one eye on a likely reelection campaign and McConnell picking up the pieces of a failed effort by Republicans to win back control of the Senate.

It is a particularly opportune time for the administration, offering a split screen moment with House Republicans who spent a second day feuding over who they should pick to lead them. By highlighting the investment in McConnell’s state, officials are explicitly seeking to broaden Biden’s cross-aisle appeal with voters — and draw a clear contrast with the partisan hostility that the White House anticipates from the newly GOP-controlled House.

As he departed the White House on Wednesday morning, Biden told reporters the House speaker drama was “embarrassing” but “not my problem.”

“Biden is absolutely sending a message to the American people that there are people you can trust to govern,” the adviser to the White House said of the calculations behind the event. “And then there’s the House Republican caucus.”

But while McConnell’s appearance may represent the possibilities of bipartisanship over the next two years, the standoff in the House underscores the challenges facing Biden. As he prepares for a series of showdowns on critical issues like the federal budget, funding for Ukraine and the debt ceiling, there is little to suggest that the White House will have any luck moving legislation through a GOP-led House chamber.

Administration officials have sought to play up Biden’s record in reaching compromises — and make clear to McConnell and other deal-minded Republicans that they’re open to bipartisan coalitions aimed at finding even small areas of agreement.

“I think that will begin to reach people there: Look what bipartisanship looks like,” Brown said prior to the event. “This is a $1.6 billion investment. It took a new president and a new Senate to do it.”

Though McConnell has opposed much of Biden’s agenda, he’s resisted the most extreme demands of the GOP’s conservative base — including flatly rejecting the idea of impeachment.

Both Biden and McConnell allies, however, cautioned against reading too much into Wednesday’s joint appearance. There’s little expectation on either side that Biden and McConnell will immediately find a slew of other shared legislative goals. The Brent Spence Bridge event, they noted, serves to benefit their respective interests.

For McConnell, funding for the project will help break a lengthy impasse over how to pay for repairs to a critical roadway between Kentucky and Ohio — and deliver a win for a lawmaker who has reinforced his political power over decades by consistently delivering for his constituents.

“This is a bridge that has been a major national issue for 25 years, and my top transportation project for decades,” McConnell said in a brief interview Tuesday. “And it’s going to be fully funded by the infrastructure bill, which I supported.”

The White House, for its part, is using the occasion to kick off what’s likely to be an extended campaign to emphasize the impact of infrastructure legislation that aides believe most voters haven’t yet fully grasped. Biden advisers view that public relations effort as crucial to the president’s popularity ahead of an anticipated reelection bid, especially with his policy ambitions likely limited by the GOP blockade in the House.

“President Biden at the end of 2022 spoke to the country about how his most significant achievements of his first two years of his term were bipartisan achievements,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who added that Wednesday’s event with McConnell demonstrates the president “understands that we make our best progress as a country when we do it together.”

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

source

Biden: 'My intention' is to visit the Southern border

Republicans have long insisted that Biden see the border with Mexico firsthand — one of many criticisms they’ve maintained over the administration’s border policy. GOP leaders, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), have held press conferences criticizing Biden from the border itself, highlighting what they’ve labeled as an immigration crisis.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in November called McCarthy’s border visit a “political stunt.”

The Biden administration faced additional scrutiny for its immigration policies last month under the expected expiration of Title 42, a mechanism used by the Biden and Trump administrations to prevent the entry of millions of migrants under Covid-era rules. Critics have argued the federal government is not prepared for the influx of migrants expected when Title 42 is lifted, as authorities will no longer be able to turn migrants away without an asylum hearing.

The Supreme Court ruled in December that Title 42 can stay in place for now, with oral arguments in the case expected in February or March.

source